Elukutsetevahelise hierarhia eitamine oleks vist imelik. Samas on see hierarhia tunnetuslik ning asümmeetriline. Viimase tunnistamine võib olla keeruline “olulisemate” professioonide esindajatele. Kui näiteks kujutada kriminaalpolitseinikke hierarhiliselt kõrgemalseisvateks patrullipolitseinikest – nii see paljudes traditsioonilist politseistrateegiat viljelevates organisatsioonides sageli ongi -, siis teatud funktsionaalsetes küsimustes sõltub kriminaalpolitseinike töö edukus just patrullpolitseinike professionaalsusest, suhtumisest, jms. Sedalaadi võimu asümmeetria küsimused on organisatsioonide mõtestamisel väga olulised, kuid ka keerulised. Siinviidatu on vabalevis olev tekst, mis kahtluseta võiks pretendeerida juhtimise- ja politseieriala kursuste seminaritekstiks või isegi kohustusliku lugemisvara hulka kuuluvaks.
Organizational theorists refer to this subcategory of formal authority as functional authority, distinct from other subcategories of formal authority such as line and staff authority (Thompson, 1956; Galbraith, 1977; Daft, 2014). In these organizational contexts, a misalignment or asymmetry between professional status and functional authority occurs, a phenomenon that I refer to as status–authority asymmetry. For example, lower-status safety auditors have functional authority over higher-status scientists with respect to lab safety practices (Huising, 2015)
All of this begs the question of how and when lower-status professionals with functional authority could elicit compliance from higher-status professionals. […] In this setting, 911 dispatchers (lowerstatus professionals with higher functional authority) need to elicit compliance from police officers (higher-status professionals) in order to quickly and effectively dispatch 911 calls for service.
Uurimustööst ja andmeallikatest:
Through a 24-month ethnography of 911 emergency coordination, I find that some 911 dispatchers are able to effectively elicit compliance from police officers, while others are not. […] This study is based on 24 months of ethnographic fieldwork in emergency management organizations (EMOs) conducted between May 2015 and May 2017. My primary fieldwork occurred at Delta City’s emergency management organization (DEMO) and the associated Delta City police department (DPD).
Mis on staatus?
Status is understood as ‘‘the position in a social hierarchy that results from accumulated acts of deference’’ (Ridgeway 1984; Sauder, Lynn, and Podolny, 2012: 268) or more simply as ‘‘the extent to which an individual or group is respected or admired by others’’ (Magee and Galinsky, 2008: 359).
… ja võim?
Power is defined as the ‘‘asymmetric control over valued resources’’ in social relations (Emerson, 1962; Salancik and Pfeffer, 1977; Magee and Galinsky, 2008: 361).
Organisatsioonisisese mitmekesisuse mõtestamiseks:
Organizational scholars have further examined the distinct aspects of formal authority within organizations and theorized its three subcategories: line authority, staff authority, and functional authority (Simon, 1957; Etzioni, 1959; Peabody, 1962; Daft, 2014).
My findings suggest that as compared with customizing or escalating behavior, higher-status professionals care more about behavior that affects how their immediate peers perceive them, especially incidents that could impact their reputation and trustworthiness.
Väga praktiline ja sageli ignoreeritud tähelepanek:
Given the importance of lowerstatus professionals in the implementation of organizational goals around a range of important issues (e.g., sustainability, diversity and inclusion, social distancing/infection prevention, patient care, algorithmic fairness, detecting fake news), it is crucial to not only document the challenges they face in the workplace but also understand the practices and mechanisms, such as peer publicizing, that might help them elicit compliance from higher-status professionals and implement organizational and social-purpose goals.
Karunakaran, A. (2021). Status–Authority Asymmetry between Professions: The Case of 911 Dispatchers and Police Officers. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392211059505